[all][tc] Retrospective for OpenStack Elections
Hello Stackers, The OpenStack Technical Committee would like to take a moment to reflect on the recently concluded elections [1][2]. Elections and renewal of governance are a cornerstone of our Open Community principle [3]. We firmly believe that well-governed projects are sustainable and successful. In the recent elections, we saw 78 electors cast their votes to elect members to the TC out of 173 eligible voters. Jeremy Stanley (fungi) is planning to follow up with some more detailed analysis, but I wanted to kick-start this thread to share a few insights and initiate a call-to-action. To be eligible to contest or vote in OpenStack elections, you must meet two criteria: - You must be an Active Contributor, which means you have had a change merged in the roughly one-year period prior to the elections. - You must be an "Individual Member" of the OpenInfra Foundation (not a "Community Member") at the time the electoral rolls are created. This date is published and typically occurs a few days before polling begins. For the recently concluded 2026.1 elections, we identified over 650 active contributors in the one-year timeframe. However, as you can see, the number of eligible voters and the number of actual voters were significantly smaller. We've identified a few key reasons for this: - Individual Membership Renewal: In the past few months, as the OIF has transitioned under the Linux Foundation, we asked all individual members to "renew" their memberships. OIF staff and OpenStack election officials noticed a drop in the electorate due to this new requirement. It's quite easy for an email seeking renewal to get lost in a crowded inbox. - Opt-in for Ballots: We host our elections with CIVS, a free and secure internet voting service. A ballot arrives via email when polling begins, but CIVS will not send you an email unless you have opted in. While we have tried to remind folks to enable these emails, they can still get "lost" in the noise. - Membership Type Confusion: Many of us may not realize that we need to be an "Individual" member of the OIF to participate in the governance process. I feel we need to do a better job of reminding people why this is needed, so they can make an informed choice about whether they'd like to impact the governance of OpenStack. Nearly 500 contributors are currently either "Community" members or have no affiliation with the OIF. We'd like to hear your thoughts and ideas on how we can improve in these areas (are there any more?). What can we do to ensure a wider and more engaged electorate in future elections? We believe that increasing participation is essential for the long-term health and success of the OpenStack community. Thank you, Goutham Pacha Ravi (gouthamr) OpenStack Technical Committee [1] https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.... [2] https://lists.openstack.org/archives/list/openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.... [3] https://opendev.org/openinfra/four-opens/src/branch/master/doc/source/openco....
On 2025-09-22 11:50:14 -0700 (-0700), Goutham Pacha Ravi wrote: [...]
In the recent elections, we saw 78 electors cast their votes to elect members to the TC out of 173 eligible voters. Jeremy Stanley (fungi) is planning to follow up with some more detailed analysis [...]
Not *that* much more detailed. In order to try and isolate the impact from the recent foundation membership reestablishment, I compared Flamingo (2025.2) cycle contributors to data I had on hand from prior cycles. Checking the individuals who contributed to both Epoxy (2025.1) and Flamingo, and who were individual members at the end of the Epoxy cycle prior to the membership reestablishment requirement, 34 of them were not members of the new foundation last week at the end of Flamingo. For added reference, running the same comparison between Dalmatian (2024.2) and Epoxy, there were only 5 people who were member-contributors in Dalmatian but were subsequently nonmember-contributors to Epoxy (either scrubbed because they didn't vote in foundation director elections or intentionally resigned their memberships). Since Flamingo is nearly an order of magnitude greater reduction, it stands to reason that missing the reestablishment reminders or not getting around to clicking through the link is primarily responsible. As an aside, Wes Wilson (OpenInfra Foundation Chief of Staff) is reaching out to each of these 34 individuals directly to remind them of the reestablishment process. Hopefully that helps close the gap. And if anybody has any additional questions, I'm happy to answer them or get you to someone who can. -- Jeremy Stanley
participants (2)
-
Goutham Pacha Ravi
-
Jeremy Stanley